Archive for the ‘Atheist’ Category

h1

Door to door atheists

November 14, 2008
Before you push play be warned of strong language. You have been warned! Again if you truly dislike swearing, do not push play and most of all do not tell me later how offended you were… I mean take some responsibility for your own actions! Sheesh! And pleeeeease don’t accuse me of bashing “just” Mormons… I mean good grief I think this atheist has a huge point.

Advertisements
h1

Door to door atheists

November 14, 2008
Before you push play be warned of strong language. You have been warned! Again if you truly dislike swearing, do not push play and most of all do not tell me later how offended you were… I mean take some responsibility for your own actions! Sheesh! And pleeeeease don’t accuse me of bashing “just” Mormons… I mean good grief I think this atheist has a huge point.

h1

Atheism vs. Christianity

January 22, 2008

Atheism vs. Christianity

I have taken on fundamentalist, and anti emerging church folk… so I was looking around and wondered who else can I take on who might also hate me! LOL!…

Just joking.

I have had a few conversations with atheists in the past yet recently I was told the definition of “atheist” and “agnostic” is not right… I do beg to differ in this as I see that this is a more recent “redefining” of terms…

An Atheist is one who had looked a the Theists proof and is not convinced at the evidence. Atheists claim to not have decided one way or the other… (I will again bear correction if this definition is not right)

Agnostics are defined differently by different people… but lets state here (and i will bear correction) that an agnostic sees that there is no God as there is no evidence to prove one exists.
Now, I have been talking to a few and really have not gotten anywhere as there seems to be a hang up on if “thought” exists or rather if “abstract thought” exists in the empirical world of the atheist and agnostic.

Now, for fun I want to submit this debate. Two rather articulate men Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein. This is the famous debate that people still talk about.

Please listen to the whole thing the let’s discuss.
I will do another posts with more debates.

Be blessed,

iggy
h1

Atheism vs. Christianity

January 22, 2008

Atheism vs. Christianity

I have taken on fundamentalist, and anti emerging church folk… so I was looking around and wondered who else can I take on who might also hate me! LOL!…

Just joking.

I have had a few conversations with atheists in the past yet recently I was told the definition of “atheist” and “agnostic” is not right… I do beg to differ in this as I see that this is a more recent “redefining” of terms…

An Atheist is one who had looked a the Theists proof and is not convinced at the evidence. Atheists claim to not have decided one way or the other… (I will again bear correction if this definition is not right)

Agnostics are defined differently by different people… but lets state here (and i will bear correction) that an agnostic sees that there is no God as there is no evidence to prove one exists.
Now, I have been talking to a few and really have not gotten anywhere as there seems to be a hang up on if “thought” exists or rather if “abstract thought” exists in the empirical world of the atheist and agnostic.

Now, for fun I want to submit this debate. Two rather articulate men Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein. This is the famous debate that people still talk about.

Please listen to the whole thing the let’s discuss.
I will do another posts with more debates.

Be blessed,

iggy
h1

More on Atheism…

December 30, 2007

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. — Heywood Broun

A while back I did a post on atheism and gave my three most used “arguments” against the view. Again I am not out to “change” anyone nor am I wanting to get into heavy debate. Yet, the one that most either thought was not strong or was not the best seemed to be the idea that all men are born with the idea of a god that exists and must suppress this view in order to be an atheist. To me this is actually the strongest view as I see that most atheists once did believe in “god” but rejected the idea. I know of not one that started out stating there is no god and then tried to prove their position… which is still at least to me a rather strange thing to do if a god does not exist. Why argue about a god that does not exist if one does not exist? It seems like one arguing that one cannot fly as they are falling from an airplane… trying to convince the other person that they also cannot fly as they hit the ground. If god did not exist then to me at least there need not be any reason to discuss it or to try to convince others that one does not exist.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. –Mohandas Gandhi

Now, I found this idea is not new (at least not original with me) This is called theistic innatism, in fact the idea that there is no god is only recorded back as far as the 5th century bce so it seems that the view that one is born with the view that there is a god has more historical basis. Of course one might argue that superstitions and such also were more prevalent, yet that still does not prove that man is not born with the innate view that there is a god.

Still, as one person stated that he saw this view as not strong… it seems that if I was to ask this person, I bet he would reply his view that god does not exist came out of studying and science, both to me are not anti-god but if one can, would prove god more. I do not see science and faith as incompatible, in fact most of the greatest scientist professed a faith in God. I am not going to go through them now, yet Isaac Newton was one that even wrote a biblical commentary.

Now, I took the view out of Romans chapter one…
In Romans, Paul lays out that man has no excuse, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” And that “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Now, I am not stating that all atheists are “wicked” so please do not take that as what I am stating… What Paul is referring to is those who worshiped creation in place of the True God…

Now Paul does go on to state, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If one just looks at creation, then one must realize that there is a design. If there is a design there need be a designer. So, the one thing an atheist needs prove to me is that design can happen without a designer then I will take real look atheism as a valid view.

But, if there is a design, then there need be a designer… even in the natural world, such as the Grand Canyon, in its design, water became the designer of the erosion. Yet, still one must go back to ask how water was designed. Keep working back to the Big Bang and find that somehow something must come out of nothing… which then leads us to Genesis in which God creates all out of nothing.

Now recently a few scientists created matter from light. They have known that this can be done for many years, yet no one has taken the time to do it until recently. Interestingly the very first thing God spoke into existence out of nothing was… light… and from light all matter came.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. –G.K. Chesterton

Now, to state that one “knows for certain there is no god” then places one into the category of being all knowing… and if that be so, then has make oneself a “god” in and of themselves. Now, I know of no atheists that claim to know all things. Though some are not willing to admit that they are really agnostic, to not know is to state still the possibility of the existence of a god.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge” –Ravi Zacharias

Now, I find this to be true, that one who truly is searching will find their way to a philosophy, and as they dig deeper they will find themselves involved in “religion”… the issue is that a little philosophy will bring us to the idea that man is truly the highest of being… yet, a little more thought will make one realize that this is not the truth. There has to be something or someone higher… the deeper one digs in philosophy they will realize that one can become lost in the faith of man and in all the ideas of man’s philosophy. I see it can shake one to the core, yet in the end if one truly seeking truth, truth reveals itself and pushes on deeper and deeper into the realm of faith. Can a man live as an atheist without faith… no, one must place all faith in one’s own understanding though… and I for one do not think I have that much faith!

A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. –Francis Bacon

Again, I see that the idea that one must suppress belief in a god has more validity than to not believe. Yet, to believe in a god is not enough to find Truth. One must have faith. Faith is a gift from God it depends totally on what one places this faith in… yet if one cannot beleive in God, to admit that one lacks faith to do so, is the beginning of gaining enough faith for one’s path to find Truth.

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

More on Atheism…

December 30, 2007

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. — Heywood Broun

A while back I did a post on atheism and gave my three most used “arguments” against the view. Again I am not out to “change” anyone nor am I wanting to get into heavy debate. Yet, the one that most either thought was not strong or was not the best seemed to be the idea that all men are born with the idea of a god that exists and must suppress this view in order to be an atheist. To me this is actually the strongest view as I see that most atheists once did believe in “god” but rejected the idea. I know of not one that started out stating there is no god and then tried to prove their position… which is still at least to me a rather strange thing to do if a god does not exist. Why argue about a god that does not exist if one does not exist? It seems like one arguing that one cannot fly as they are falling from an airplane… trying to convince the other person that they also cannot fly as they hit the ground. If god did not exist then to me at least there need not be any reason to discuss it or to try to convince others that one does not exist.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. –Mohandas Gandhi

Now, I found this idea is not new (at least not original with me) This is called theistic innatism, in fact the idea that there is no god is only recorded back as far as the 5th century bce so it seems that the view that one is born with the view that there is a god has more historical basis. Of course one might argue that superstitions and such also were more prevalent, yet that still does not prove that man is not born with the innate view that there is a god.

Still, as one person stated that he saw this view as not strong… it seems that if I was to ask this person, I bet he would reply his view that god does not exist came out of studying and science, both to me are not anti-god but if one can, would prove god more. I do not see science and faith as incompatible, in fact most of the greatest scientist professed a faith in God. I am not going to go through them now, yet Isaac Newton was one that even wrote a biblical commentary.

Now, I took the view out of Romans chapter one…
In Romans, Paul lays out that man has no excuse, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” And that “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Now, I am not stating that all atheists are “wicked” so please do not take that as what I am stating… What Paul is referring to is those who worshiped creation in place of the True God…

Now Paul does go on to state, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If one just looks at creation, then one must realize that there is a design. If there is a design there need be a designer. So, the one thing an atheist needs prove to me is that design can happen without a designer then I will take real look atheism as a valid view.

But, if there is a design, then there need be a designer… even in the natural world, such as the Grand Canyon, in its design, water became the designer of the erosion. Yet, still one must go back to ask how water was designed. Keep working back to the Big Bang and find that somehow something must come out of nothing… which then leads us to Genesis in which God creates all out of nothing.

Now recently a few scientists created matter from light. They have known that this can be done for many years, yet no one has taken the time to do it until recently. Interestingly the very first thing God spoke into existence out of nothing was… light… and from light all matter came.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. –G.K. Chesterton

Now, to state that one “knows for certain there is no god” then places one into the category of being all knowing… and if that be so, then has make oneself a “god” in and of themselves. Now, I know of no atheists that claim to know all things. Though some are not willing to admit that they are really agnostic, to not know is to state still the possibility of the existence of a god.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge” –Ravi Zacharias

Now, I find this to be true, that one who truly is searching will find their way to a philosophy, and as they dig deeper they will find themselves involved in “religion”… the issue is that a little philosophy will bring us to the idea that man is truly the highest of being… yet, a little more thought will make one realize that this is not the truth. There has to be something or someone higher… the deeper one digs in philosophy they will realize that one can become lost in the faith of man and in all the ideas of man’s philosophy. I see it can shake one to the core, yet in the end if one truly seeking truth, truth reveals itself and pushes on deeper and deeper into the realm of faith. Can a man live as an atheist without faith… no, one must place all faith in one’s own understanding though… and I for one do not think I have that much faith!

A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. –Francis Bacon

Again, I see that the idea that one must suppress belief in a god has more validity than to not believe. Yet, to believe in a god is not enough to find Truth. One must have faith. Faith is a gift from God it depends totally on what one places this faith in… yet if one cannot beleive in God, to admit that one lacks faith to do so, is the beginning of gaining enough faith for one’s path to find Truth.

Be blessed,
iggy

h1

Three arguments against anti Theism. (updated title)

November 16, 2007

(Update: In recent days I have been conversing more with “Atheists” who state I have the definition of Atheist wrong. In this piece most people’s understanding of “atheist” is that they do not believe in a god. I have changed it anti theist as I see it more accurately goes with their own definitions. Please as reading this also note that all people until recently have used agnostic as one that does not know if God exists or not as they do not see proof. It seems this also is differently defined as “one that does not believe a god exists”. My post here was not posted out of ignorance as I have never heard these re-definitions until recently though most my encounters have been over the last 10 to 15 years. The point is not that one moves from one label to another, but that if one claims that there is no god that they will see that that is irrational and that they if honest will have to admit that there is the possibility of a god existing. Dear reader, please read the following in that context. The post itself remains unchanged except for the title.)
1. Evil

The point that one seems to understand that there is good and evil negates that God does not exist. To state that God does not exist then negates that there is also the reality of good or evil. To acknowledge evil exists then is to say at the very least there is a principle of good and evil which is higher than man. If then this principle is higher and one must acknowledge it, then it in itself is a “god” man must acknowledge. Though not a personal God, it is a type of god.

2. To even argue that God does not exist prove he does.

In the bible one must abandon that they know God exists. In the same way if God did not exist one would have to abandon that God did not exist to believe in Him. Since a person must abandon the belief in God or a god, they must rationalize Him away… but if a god did not exist this in itself would be an act of futility as most would just wonder why the need to do so is needed. To see what I mean just read Romans chapter one.

3. There is no true atheist or at least one who is a honest intellectual one.

All atheist if they really understood the logical flaw behind their assertion would realize they are actually agnostic. I have yet to meet one atheist I have not turned into an agnostic.

And here is how. Box one is all that is known in creation (yes I saw the miss spelled word but it was too late! LOL!)

Box two is a really smart person who knows as much as can be know in the known universe.

Notice though for all the white space, that there is still blue visible… in that area one must be honest enough to admit that outside of their own knowledge a God can possibly exist.

To state that one knows all that is possibly known then makes them “god” themselves.

Now, these are simplistic ways, and may admittedly be over simplistic, but sometimes the more simplistic the argument the truer it is. This also is not the ultimate in the “answer” to evil… I am no talking about he existence of evil only that it proves that God exists because we acknowledge evil exists.

I am also stating the argue that God does not exist proves He does as to argue against something that does not exist is nonsensical and truly would be a waste of time… If God does not exist then we would argue He did exist and need try to prove that.

And there is no such thing as a true atheist. The honest ones are agnostic.

So what are your thoughts?